White Holes

[son of sun]

What, according to the laws and physics of the universe, could exist on the other side of a black hole? There is a theory stating that due to the extreme density inside a black hole, a singularity of matter is formed, becoming so dense that it punches a hole in reality. Is this possible?

[imatfaal]

We really have very little idea of what happens past the event horizon of a blackhole - let alone at the singularity.

 

I have never really understood the idea of a whitehole connected to a blackhole thing. It seems to be premised on the idea that the matter that is absorbed by the blackhole in one universe/place/reality is ejected through a whitehole in another. But we know that the matter in the blackhole continues to act gravitationally on the matter outside the event horizon (ie it adds to the mass of the blackhole) - so why are we positing an idea that gets rid of the matter?

[son of sun]

We really have very little idea of what happens past the event horizon of a blackhole - let alone at the singularity.

 

I have never really understood the idea of a whitehole connected to a blackhole thing. It seems to be premised on the idea that the matter that is absorbed by the blackhole in one universe/place/reality is ejected through a whitehole in another. But we know that the matter in the blackhole continues to act gravitationally on the matter outside the event horizon (ie it adds to the mass of the blackhole) - so why are we positing an idea that gets rid of the matter?

 

The addition of mass to a black does prove that matter within a black hole stays there, so I suppose it does seem unlikely that the matter is reposited in another reality; however, it could still be possible that the dent in spacetime caused by the black hole could be deep enough to rip the fabric of the universe.

[zapatos]

The addition of mass to a black does prove that matter within a black hole stays there, so I suppose it does seem unlikely that the matter is reposited in another reality; however, it could still be possible that the dent in spacetime caused by the black hole could be deep enough to rip the fabric of the universe.

Could it? How precisely would you describe the fabric ripping? What physically is taking place?

[Wilmot McCutchen]

The mass does not disappear into some cosmic drain, does it? I don't have the math to understand the theories here, but I do recall something about "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" as a principle of scientific inquiry. So without positing the existence of a drain into another universe, the converging streamlines of a collapsar or galaxy might rebound from the center without any central entity being there. Like a cavitation bubble. Axial jets (evidenced by gamma ray bursts and photography) show that something is coming out of the center, when everything should be disappearing in. The White Hole is the axial jets. The Black Hole might be a superfluous entity, like phlogiston, or zero.

[son of sun]

Could it? How precisely would you describe the fabric ripping? What physically is taking place?

 

Well, in theory, the singularity within the black hole could become dense enough that the dent it creates could deepen far enough that it encounters either another reality or our own reality at another point. This is possible because of the curvature of the universe; if it can be curved, it can be curved in on itself.

[ACG52]

Axial jets (evidenced by gamma ray bursts and photography) show that something is coming out of the center, when everything should be disappearing in.

 

The axial jets do not come from within the BH. They are generated by the heated swirling of the accretion disk surrounding the BH.

[Ronald Hyde]

I pick up a very large grain of salt when anyone mentions a 'black hole'. The notion is tied to GR, a theory which has not been

integrated into the rest of Physics, which now largely consists of the Standard Model, which may be incomplete but does seem

to be correct. It's nice to deal with theoretical objects which are beyond immediate observation, since no one can disprove them.

But its ad hoc aspect stand out like a sore thumb, and I'm surprised at how many people accept it without question.

[ACG52]

It's nice to deal with theoretical objects which are beyond immediate observation, since no one can disprove them.

 

We have good observational evidence of the BH in the center of the Milky Way, in the form of stellar orbits around the center. They tell us there is a 400 million solar mass object they are orbiting.

 

High speed stellar orbits

[Ronald Hyde]

We have good observational evidence of the BH in the center of the Milky Way, in the form of stellar orbits around the center. They tell us there is a 400 million solar mass object they are orbiting.

 

High speed stellar orbits

They have evidence that there is something very big there. Or maybe that gravity doesn't work quite the same there as at other parts of the galaxy.

Does not necessarily extrapolate to black hole. The jury is still out on that one, for me at least.

[ACG52]

They have evidence that there is something very big there.

 

No, the stellar orbits show that there's something very massive, and very small.

 

Or maybe that gravity doesn't work quite the same there as at other parts of the galaxy.

 

There has never been any evidence, of any kind, that the laws of physics differ from one part of the galaxy to another.

 

The jury is still out on that one

 

No, it's not.

[EdEarl]

I found The Revival of White Holes as Small Bangs by Alon Retter & Shlomo Heller that suggests some Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) are white holes.

Abstract
Black holes are extremely dense and compact objects from which light cannot escape. There is an
overall consensus that black holes exist and many astronomical objects are identified with black
holes. White holes were understood as the exact time reversal of black holes, therefore they should
continuously throw away material. It is accepted, however, that a persistent ejection of mass leads to
gravitational pressure, the formation of a black hole and thus to the "death of while holes". So far,
no astronomical source has been successfully tagged a white hole. The only known white hole is the
Big Bang which was instantaneous rather than continuous or long-lasting. We thus suggest that the
emergence of a white hole, which we name a 'Small Bang', is spontaneous – all the matter is ejected
at a single pulse. Unlike black holes, white holes cannot be continuously observed rather their effect
can only be detected around the event itself. Gamma ray bursts are the most energetic explosions in
the universe. Long γ-ray bursts were connected with supernova eruptions. There is a new group of γ-
ray bursts, which are relatively close to Earth, but surprisingly lack any supernova emission. We
propose identifying these bursts with white holes. White holes seem like the best explanation of γ-
ray bursts that appear in voids. We also predict the detection of rare gigantic γ-ray bursts with
energies much higher than typically observed.

 

Is it possible that waves of dark energy sometimes form rogue waves that erupt as white holes?

 

Edit:

If small bangs do spontaneously appear as GRB, then why would there not be less energetic spontaneous eruptions of mass (grey holes)? Do virtual particles sometimes become real?

 

If white holes do occur, then the mass of the Universe must be increasing. Conservation of mass-energy seems to imply the total amount of DE would decrease. Yet, proton-electron mass has not changed in some 10Gyr, which IIRC means DE is constant over time within measurement limits. Does this measurement suggest small bangs do not occur?

Edited June 25, 2013 by EdEarl

[Clayjay]

This is just a logic analysis of the objective logic faced by cosmetologist about the physics inside a black-hole. Time stops at the event horizon thus, logically, time based physics stops including time invariant phenomena or any other phenomena for that matter which leaves only instantaneous physics. What existed before time? In theory that would be anti-gravity, like inflation or dark-energy, and gravity. This seems to say black-holes radiate anti-gravity into positive space and concentrate gravity into negative space or negative vacuum energy. This seems to say inside at the event horizon space-time is disassembled not crushed as the time based physics outside the event horizon would employ as explanation. This is only a logic perspective and science is logical with many perspectives. This doesn't answer the question it just frames the question.

[imatfaal]

This is just a logic analysis of the objective logic faced by cosmetologist about the physics inside a black-hole. Time stops at the event horizon thus, logically, time based physics stops including time invariant phenomena or any other phenomena for that matter which leaves only instantaneous physics. What existed before time? In theory that would be anti-gravity, like inflation or dark-energy, and gravity. This seems to say black-holes radiate anti-gravity into positive space and concentrate gravity into negative space or negative vacuum energy. This seems to say inside at the event horizon space-time is disassembled not crushed as the time based physics outside the event horizon would employ as explanation. This is only a logic perspective and science is logical with many perspectives. This doesn't answer the question it just frames the question.

 

"Time stops at the event horizon..." Your purportedly axiomatic statement is untrue - the passage of time of an object crossing the EH as observed by an outside entity, when calculated using the wrong co-ordinate system (schwarzchild) gives a mathematical singularity (a divide by zero error); but time does not stop! For the poor soul crossing the event horizon there is no change in his watch time (there never is) - and the calculation of what an outside observer would see does not yield a mathematical singularity if the correct coordinate system is employed.

[Clayjay]

I did assum an axiomatic statement "time sops at the event horizon" as a given condition - given "crossing the event horizon there is no change in his watch time" but logic is not proof yet it can be imagenery like " i "; however since information inside the event horizon can't be communicated to the outside how can any physics account for the internal physics except for imagenery solutions. There is no proof or experiment to test the theory and if you can't disprove a theory it is said that is proof it is not a theory. A mathematical singularity is either a starting point (big bang) or ending point (big cruch). Cosmology exist between those two points so looking at start and end points may be a red herring at this time because over 95% of current physics is "dark theory" which is to say we know nothing about it. I think it may be a wiser use of time and effort to be able to understand more about what processes are happening now then asking "first cause" questions. But I do enjoy the mental exercise as a logic question. Science is based in logic so logic is relevant as required but not sufficient for an answer.

[krash661]

What, according to the laws and physics of the universe, could exist on the other side of a black hole? There is a theory stating that due to the extreme density inside a black hole, a singularity of matter is formed, becoming so dense that it punches a hole in reality. Is this possible?

some would say a universe.

that includes a big bang.

Edited July 5, 2013 by krash661

[Archimedes]

It is to my understanding that in the center of a black hole, the laws of physics sort of... break down? So who's to say what's on the other side of a black hole - if there's anything at all - because we have not been there to observe what happens or where it goes. It is a strange thing to think about, that's for sure. Maybe a universe? Nobody really knows.

 

-Arch

Edited July 5, 2013 by Archimedes

[EdEarl]

I think black holes collect more an more mass, with some leaking away as Hawking Radiation. Small black holes are supposed to leak Hawking Radiation faster than larger ones, and the smallest are supposed to evaporate very quickly.

 

AFAIK the closest black hole to be "observed" is the one at the center of the Milky Way. Several locations in Andromeda are suspected to be black holes. With observation difficult, little has been confirmed.

 

http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q7.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/06/nasa-finds-unprecedented-black-hole-cluster-near-andromedas-central-bulge/

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jun/06/monster-gas-cloud-could-unveil-milky-way-s-black-hole-hub

Edited July 5, 2013 by EdEarl

[krash661]

It is to my understanding that in the center of a black hole, the laws of physics sort of... break down? So who's to say what's on the other side of a black hole - if there's anything at all - because we have not been there to observe what happens or where it goes. It is a strange thing to think about, that's for sure. Maybe a universe? Nobody really knows.

 

-Arch

according to,

don marolf

 

what's inside a black hole ?

 

" according to einstein's gr , black holes are almost entirely empty space.

any matter inside the event horizon(the black hole's outer edge)quickly compresses until it is

infinitely small.

the black hole's interior is then simply warped space-time,the curvature of which causes objects to experience tidal forces like those the moon exerts on earth.

though relatively weak at the horizon,deep inside the black hole these forces become so strong that they'll " spaghettify " anything,

stretching and squeezing it like dough in an electric mixer. "

 

there's more to this, if wanted, i'll type the rest.

Edited July 6, 2013 by krash661

[MigL]

When a suitably large mass gravitationally collapses the space enclosed by the horizon is topologically 'closed' while the space preceding the collapse was topologically 'open'. This can be visualised two-dimensionally with a sphere ( topologically closed ) and a flat sheet ( topologically open ).

The sphere CANNOT be mapped onto the sheet ( and vice versa ), just like maps of the spherical earth are distorted when on a flat paper. Therefore one cannot have arisen from the other. To be able to map every point on the spere with every point on the flat sheet, one has to introduce a 'hole', in effect an edge, to the sphere. The size is unimportant, even a single point will do.

If we assume that at the centre of the event horizon there is a 'hole' or edge to space-time then the closed surface can follow from the open surface.

 

This, if I recall correctly, is the gist of Roger Penrose's argument in 1965 to prove that the centre of a black hole must include a 'hole' in space-time, or an edge or a singularity if you will.

[Archimedes]

Alright, thank you Krash, that helps.

 

-Arch

Edited July 6, 2013 by Archimedes